**1. Introduction**

Several definitions of circular economy (CE) exist in the literature, mainly focusing on different aspects of its core concept, firstly defined in the 1970s and then developed over time among different schools of thought [1–3]. The European Commission has delineated a simple but complete definition of CE in 2015, which specifies that [4]:

*"In a circular economy, the value of products and materials is maintained for as long as possible. Waste and resource use are minimized, and when a product reaches the end of its life, it is used again to create further value."*

In the last two decades, CE has gained great attention and commitment from international governments, policy makers, and institutions. They identified in this economic model a great opportunity to: (i) build long-term resilience and sustainability, (ii) determine business and economic competitiveness, and (iii) provide societal and environmental benefits [5, 6]. In 2020, the European Commission launched "A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe" [7], which states that going mainstream the CE will significantly contribute to the achievement of a climate-neutral society and economy, according to the European Green Deal objective [8]. In [9], the benefits and contribution of CE on the pillars of sustainability have been deeply analyzed, highlighting how CE directly or indirectly addresses the achievement of a relevant number of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) targets, described in the United Nation Agenda 2030 to attain sustainable development in a balanced manner considering the interrelated and holistic nature of the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability.

Since each business model is, by definition, focused on creating and capture value, generating sustainable and competitive advantages through product and process innovation, the enterprises have a fundamental and active role in the transition to a CE, which guides the innovation to transform the way products are designed, manufactured and used along their entire life-cycle [10, 11]. To enable an effective and successful circular strategy in the industrial sector, all actors in the supply chain should take part in the transition [12]. In [13], a literature review on the practical application of CE in the manufacturing industry is provided: even if empirical case studies, focusing on applications for narrowing and closing the resource loops, increase over time, it has been highlighted that the implementation of CE in the manufacturing sector is still sporadic and it is not possible to find in literature any kind of systematized recommendations able to guide companies in the successful CE transition of their business models. To overcome the lacking of comprehensive analyses to identify the most impactful CE actions on a specific business model building block, the reference [14] provides a list of nine general managerial insights to support companies in shifting to the practical implementation of CE in their business models.

Several studies are focused on the identification of the main barriers to the design and implementation of successful CE strategies [15–17]. One of the most recognized limits for the overcoming of the CE practice-theory gap is the lack of clear and consistent methods to actually assess the circularity and sustainability of products, processes, business models, and strategies. The quantification of the achieved circularity level involves different scales, from the micro/meso scale (companies, supply chains, industrial parks, etc.) to the macro scale (cities, regions, countries, etc.). At a company level, quantitative information is fundamental to rapidly and effectively make decisions about innovations and investments [18]. The importance of assessing initiatives and practices is greater in the CE context, which is by nature characterized by a network of interconnected companies; consequently, a holistic and transparent method to measure the impact of CE becomes fundamental [19]. At macro-level, the primary need for policy- and decision-makers is a coherent definition of strategical visions at regional, national and international levels, setting realistic targets and measuring their effectiveness [20, 21].

Several approaches and indicators to measure circularity have emerged in the last years. Numerous recent studies reviewed the existing literature about circular

#### *An Innovative Visualization Tool to Boost and Monitor Circular Economy: An Overview of Its… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98761*

indicators and metrics, dividing them according to the system level (micro, meso, macro) and, within each level, according to the sustainability pillars that they assess (environmental, economic, and social) [19, 22–24]. These papers highlight that hundreds of indicators to assess CE exist, but there are still two main issues for their widespread implementation, ensuring a suitable CE assessment. (i) The first issue comes to the assessment of CE within the same scale/level. In particular, high diversity and fragmentation of approaches and metrics have been identified, making it difficult to compare the industrial applications in which such indicators and methods are used [19, 23]. The causes of this fragmentation are mainly two. The first element is related to the big concept of the CE umbrella: hundreds of CE definitions exist, and its paradigm is developing without an overall consensus regarding circular actions and aspects [25]. This diversity in the theoretical background is reflected in the industrial adoption of CE, which provides very specific case studies. Consequently, these peculiarities also require a tailored assessment framework, challenging to be replicated in other contexts. The second element that determines fragmentation in CE assessment at the same scale is linked to the lack of standards. In fact, only practical but not official guidance on CE principles, practices, and monitoring have been published. Only the British Standards Institution launched a new standard about CE, the "BS 8001:2017 – Framework for implementing the principles of the circular economy in organizations−Guide" [26], but international standardized guidelines, and their transposition at a national level, are still under development and are not expected before 2022. (ii) The second issue recognized in literature in the use of circular indicators consists of the connection among system levels, allowing the identification of the links between the micro- and macro- level metrics [22].

Often, in the literature reviews about available circular indicators [19, 22, 27], a significant statement about the difficulties and complexity to use and implement these metrics is highlighted and refers to the relevant need to collect and process a large quantity of data (typically related to aspects not yet monitored in the industry), characterized by suitable robustness and consistency. To overcome this barrier, the authors developed an innovative visualization tool ViVACE® (Visualization of Value to Assess Circular Economy), published in 2019 [28] and registered as a mark in 2020, able to intuitively provide quantitative information about CE to guide the decision-making process and monitor the impacts at the described scales. Starting from the question of why such a recognized and consolidated concept was so difficult to put in practice, an analysis of the existing visualization tools to explain the CE paradigm was conducted (considering both grey and scientific literature) to select the most suitable to boost an effective and successful transition to a more sustainable production and consumption model. This analysis highlighted the lack of three main features, without which the demonstration of the benefits and limits to shift to a CE should be challenging, above all for practitioners. These missing characteristics in the available tools are: (i) the capacity to provide quantitative information about circularity; (ii) the possibility to be adapted to different industrial sectors; and (iii) having correspondence to what effectively occurs in real industrial contexts. From this framework, the development of a new visualization tool started.

After a little more than a year from the building of the tool, the authors applied it to different industrial sectors, confirming its features and capacity to boost the practical implementation of CE and to feed suitable and significant indicators to assess practice performance. The chapter aims to present an overview of the application fields of the ViVACE® tool, highlighting its main advantages, possible improvements, and the main implications to reach the purposes of different levels in the CE field. After this first introduction, which aims to introduce the most
